Share this project

Share this project

A story-driven CRPG set in the world of Monte Cook's Numenera. We are deeply appreciative to all of you who made this possible. Torment: Tides of Numenera is available now for PC on Steam or GOG, as well as PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.

Your participation in the combat discussion and vote has been terrific! Almost 20% voted and over 2000 comments were made on our forums alone. That’s twice the turnout I expected, and it’s great to see all of the passion our backers have for the project. I’d like to thank everyone who got involved.

It’s been an exciting vote! The leading system changed a couple times early on and the final tally is: 7,267 TB, 7,052 RTwP and 782 Indifferent. With the vote at 48% to 47%, and with those who voted “indifferent” being more than triple the difference between the TB and RTwP camps, it is essentially a draw.

As we explained in Update 24, we were leaning toward turn-based combat because we believe it’s better suited for the kind of tactical complexity we're looking for through our Crisis system. We believe it’s a stronger fit for bringing narrative elements, including dialogue with NPCs, into hand-crafted combat situations. We have considered the vote, but more important than the vote are the comments (not just in our forums, but on many of the community forums and articles on this topic). Your comments have helped us greatly in understanding why people have the preferences and concerns that they do.

We have decided to go with turn-based combat. Ultimately, there are no losers here. This is all part of the process of making an RPG we are all passionate about and we think you’ll like Torment’s combat even if you voted for RTwP. While we have not been looking forward to disappointing half of our backers, we were happy to find that many of the reasons people gave for disliking TB and preferring RTwP can be addressed through the details of our combat system and encounter design. I’d like to go over some of the more common comments we saw either for RTwP or against TB and explain how we will address them.

Comment #1: Turn-Based combat can be tedious

If one were to take Planescape: Torment and, changing nothing else, switch to TB combat, the result would be miserable for many. You'd be stopped midstride in every Hive back alley to perform the same boring actions on meaningless thugs and zombies.

This isn’t what we’re going to do.

Turn-based combat certainly can be tedious, but that comes down to encounter design. As we stated during the Kickstarter, Torment will have no trash mobs—those hordes of filler battles that require little thought from the player. That type of gameplay is at odds with our emphasis on the story and character development, so each Crisis in Torment will be hand-crafted. It will have narrative relevance and consequences. We'll iterate on them until each one is a quality encounter and provides the experience we seek for that moment in the game.

If any combat situation in Torment were tedious, it wouldn’t be because it's turn-based. It would be because we failed in our goal. And our Crises aren’t just combat. They contain exploration, dialogue, and time-relevant actions and events that can exist outside of combat, like pursuits, environmental puzzles, and application of special skills. You’re going to have to work throughout the game toward your goals, and the Crisis concept is a primary way that we put your intentions to the test.

We understand the importance to you of combat not being tedious. Emphasis on encounter design is important for any CRPG, but for Torment, the bar will be even higher – we believe that through well designed encounters, and extensive gameplay iteration on them, we’ll be able to address the majority of the concerns expressed by those who favored RTwP.

Comment #2: Turn-Based combat can break immersion

"Immersion" is a tricky term that can mean a lot of things, but generally this comment is referring to the jarring sense a player gets when they're walking through a town and suddenly the whole world stops because, say, a feral dog saw them coming down the street.

Again, this isn't what we're going to do. In general, we don’t plan to “surprise” you with a Crisis. Through the design of the areas and the pacing of the game, you’ll know when and where combat is a possibility. The situation will feel tense and in some cases, you will be explicitly initiating the Crisis. This doesn’t mean we won’t ever ambush you, of course, but if we do, it will be very deliberate and not an arbitrary event.

We get that you don’t want to be pulled out of the game in this way and we’ll look for ways to keep you in control and prevent Crises from disrupting the normal flow of the game.

That said, Torment isn’t an action game. Real time doesn’t pass in conversations, for example – you have as much time as you want to decide your choice. And while exploration occurs in real-time, it won’t include twitch elements. All of your decision-making throughout the game will consistently be free from real-time considerations. Torment is a game about thinking and deliberation and will not have any actual time pressure, so turn-based combat will maintain a more consistent feel.

Comment #2a: Turn-Based combat isn’t realistic

A variation of the concern about immersion is that TB gameplay isn’t realistic. In a real battle, you don’t patiently observe while your opponents orderly take turns one at a time.

This is true, but the lack of realism is inherent in most videogame combat and gameplay (again, turn-based conversations come to mind), and RTwP combat isn’t immune to this issue. What we strive for isn’t realism, but creating an immersive experience that allows you to suspend your disbelief. In other words, realism is not at the core of Torment’s party-based combat.

That said, we will strive to make the combats as dynamic and visceral as possible – attacked characters will animate appropriately when struck instead of standing lifelessly, for example, or perhaps having readied actions such as overwatch or interrupts to take actions on the opponent’s turn. We will maintain tension and flow, creating the sense that you are in actual danger and making your tactical and strategic decisions matter.

Comment #3: Controlling the entire party in Turn-Based can be boring

The idea behind this concern is that if only one character in your party is relevant to the combat (e.g., it’s in a narrow passageway or a specific skill/weapon is needed for some aspect of it, etc.) then gameplay gets bogged down. It’s not fun to have to skip most of your characters’ turns, cycling back to the one character who can actually do something.

This problem also comes down to encounter design, and we’ll be paying close attention to this aspect in our specific Crisis designs. Strong support of ranged combat will help, as melee-focused battles can exacerbate this problem. The Numenera rules also help here because skills, while beneficial, generally aren’t required to accomplish specific tasks, and Effort can be expended to give any character a better chance of success at tasks outside their character build. Adam discussed how this works in Update 21 (in the context of dialogue, though it applies to Crisis gameplay as well), but we’ll copy it here again so you don’t have to search for it.

Using skills will be different, too (side note: I say "will," but we're still in pre-production, so any of this can change). Say there's a difficult task you want to attempt—lying to a prison guard or deciphering the text on an ancient puzzle box. Typically, in D&D-style RPGs for example, if you don't have the associated skill, your chances of success are very low, or you might not be able to attempt the task at all. In Numenera, all such tasks are treated the same, and anyone can try them. Training in a related skill or skills will lower the difficulty of the task, but even if you're untrained, you can still apply Effort.

Effort is a concept from the Numenera tabletop game. Essentially you spend points out of the appropriate stat pool (Might, Speed, or Intellect) to lower the difficulty of a task. The idea is, even if you've never been trained in lock picking, a very smart or dexterous character can, with some Effort, increase their chances of cracking a lock.

Your stat pools are renewable with rest. And of course, all of this is balanced. If you're trying to crack a combination lock created by a culture that died out millions of years ago, which requires a combination of smells rather than integers, well . . . you'd have to have a high-level character specialized in the task, who spent all the Intellect they had on Effort, just to make the task possible. That character would still have to roll ridiculously well.

Effort provides more options to customize your character and tackle obstacles. If there's a task you want to attempt—even if it's something normally contrary to your character build—you still have a chance of succeeding if you can use enough Effort. On the other hand, someone who has trained or specialized in that sort of task will have a greater chance of success, and will maintain that edge in similar tasks throughout the game.

Note also that party members can “assist” others in particular skill-based tasks, boosting their chances for success.

In short, we’re fully aware that cycling can be a painful way to play, and that this aspect of gameplay is important to you, and we’ll design the Crises to keep your entire party engaged.

Comment #4: You should implement both RTwP and TB and make it a gameplay option

This solution may sound ideal, but it wouldn’t give anybody what they really want. Area and encounter design needs of the two systems are very different. Designing for both would dilute the quality of the encounters for one or both systems, and most likely require so much time and resources as to impact the rest of the game. In a deep RPG like ours, where combat isn't even the focus, trying to implement two combat systems would lead to an inferior game across the board.

Comment #5: Planescape: Torment had Real-Time with Pause combat, so the new Torment should too

This is a reasonable perspective and valid point of view. Shouldn't we stick with what made the original great?

But is RTwP combat what made Planescape: Torment great? For some of you, the combat may have been an important part of your PST experience, and we hope that you’ll find the combat in Torment: Tides of Numenera to be at least equally enjoyable. But we don't think PST’s combat system was what most players loved about the game.

We believe PST is considered one of the greatest RPGs of all-time, not because its combat was Real-Time w/ Pause, but because of its emphasis on the narrative and on role-playing your character. We explained this in the four pillars we described in the Kickstarter, which are the foundation for Torment: Tides of Numenera:

1. A Deep, Thematically Satisfying Story
2. A World Unlike Any Other
3. A Rich, Personal Narrative
4. Reactivity, Choice, and Real Consequences

We’re using all four pillars to influence and reinforce our Crisis and combat design. Throughout the campaign, we stressed that we would find an approach for combat that worked well with these pillars. With the approach we have planned – including turn-based combat – we hope to integrate more narrative and more choice and consequence into the combat experience.

Though Planescape: Torment is the starting point for many of our design decisions, Torment: Tides of Numenera was never intended to be a game that, by default, duplicates everything PST did. It is a thematic successor that is inspired by PST, not derivative of it. The themes we are succeeding are the things that made Planescape: Torment a classic – the four pillars and other elements as described in our vision document – and we don’t see the specific combat system as core to PST’s legacy. We have several of the people from the PST team involved in the project and we hope that you continue to trust that we will deliver the type of CRPG experience you crave.

"The Planescape: Torment experience was never defined by its combat. In Torment: Tides of Numenera, the combat is intended to complement both the narrative systems and the basic gameplay mechanics. It is a challenging decision for the team to make, and I respect and support their decision to choose turn-based."

Comment #5a: Why all this focus on combat? Planescape: Torment wasn't even about that

This is kind of the opposite sentiment as the previous comment, or rather it's the other side of the same coin. Rest assured that combat is not, and never has been, our primary focus, as you can see in the four pillars above. Torment is very much about the story, the characters, the conversations, and the world, and we are focusing most of our efforts in those areas – it wasn't until six months after the Kickstarter that we even started talking seriously about combat in our updates.

If it feels like we are suddenly focused on combat, it's only because our recent updates have had that focus. In a month or two we'll talk about something else—art creation or story design or exploration gameplay or something—and then it'll feel like we're 100% focused on that.

Moving Forward with You

We're excited about what we have planned, and as you see more of what we’re doing, we think you’ll be excited, too. We’ll be talking about other aspects of the design in the near term, but we’ll certainly be talking more about Crises and combat down the road. We hope that you’ll continue to trust our judgment and dedication to the project and to you. Remember that you’ll have future opportunities to influence the game’s development, including aspects of its combat. We’ll be seeking your feedback in the future and you’ll be able to weigh in on details later to help us hone the experience.

We're grateful that we can solicit your feedback and your input throughout this process. This style of development would never have been possible even five years ago, let alone fifteen. It's encouraging to see your interest and passion in what we're doing. We learn a lot from your comments and posts on these topics, and we come that much closer to creating something great.

We will not take for granted the trust that you placed in us this past spring. We are making this game for you, our backers. When you play Torment, we want you to feel you trusted us wisely. We’re not looking for mass market success – our only metric is your satisfaction, and we are working hard toward that goal every day.
Thanks for your support and understanding,

Comments

Great update, thanks for the explanation! Although I was leaning towards RTwP I think the arguments for TB are sound - and as you said combat isn't the main thing that makes Torment wondeful. Although mildy disappointed that TB won, I do really appreciate you took the time to hear what the backers had to say and consider everyone's concerns before making this decision. It couldn't have been easy with such an even split!

Nothing to add on the vote. Situation haven't changed for me from the first day of the Kickstarter: the devs have now to prove they can pull it off.

@armored_mammal
Amusingly, I can't stand Fallout 3 because I find it tedious and obnoxious. Not to mention the fast travel that breaks immersion while failing in its attempt in alleviating the tedium..

@Sensuki - I did back Massive Chalice, however I backed it because 1) it is a tactical strategy game (according to Double Fine), NOT an RPG, 2) I am not expecting deep/in depth story, just a casual game, and 3) I'm hoping the whole breeding a lineage of heroes thing turns out to be pretty cool. I fail to see how that's at all at odds with my hate of turn based in RPGs (and particularly the reasons behind my hate) since it's not actually an RPG or a game focused on character development, world building, or plot. I've said repeatedly the more like Civ or HoM&M a game is the less I have an issue with TB... However the more a game is about characters, plot, and world building the more I want to murder people who think mixing TB fits with those things.

Also, RE Fallout, I can't play through 1 or 2 because it's too tedious and obnoxious, but I can play 3 just fine. I enjoyed it, even though I think it could have used more Bioware-like character interactions and deeper character building and have been less combat focused.

Also, @Sensuki I don't see why RTWP requires 'rounds.' It's pretty clear that programming RTWP via an evented/timer high-concurrency model (like with node.js or twisted) makes a lot of sense. I don't expect to miss global rounds at all. Always found them to be a turn based artifact that didn't have a real technical reason to exist.

@dlux
Nice. I'm a big fan of the original and the expansion should make it even better according to the stuff I read about it.
I also can't wait the Divinity Original Sin alpha, which should be out soon. :)

@meganothing
Sure, but I wouldn't give them a dime up front. That's all about here. We're not a community rooting for our dream game. We're a bunch of people who have already paid for that game. So we have every damn right to state our opinion and be dissapointed.
And of course they can fail in many, many ways, no question. But this failure is a calculated risk, it's a part of crowdfunding.
Once there was a rule on kickstarter: Just present full concepts and stuff ready for production. Only projects like that were allowed. Not even stuff like Massive Chalice passes, spitting on the original ruleset and the spirit behind kickstarter. I'm not happy with that, not at all.

@LC:
I'm not saying that it isn't important and not a minor issue. I have already written that I don't think it was a very wise decision - if mostly just for nostalgic reasons.

1. Not rewarding kills with xp in a game full of trash mobs is simply a very bad game design decision IMO (which is one reason why I unbacked P:E)
2. TB and RTwP on the other hand are great combat systems. Both are (were...) very valid options that can lead to a well designed game.

That is the reason why I tolerate their decision and think the game will be great even with TB combat. But like I said, I don't think it was a very good idea to ignore nostalgia.

@LC said "I wonder whether people would argue the same way if Inxile also let us vote on perspective (isometric, first person, third person or even simple text-based without graphics...)".

I can only tell you what I would have done: Voted and accepted that. If inXile thinks they can pull off a Torment-like game as third person or in text-form, I would give them the chance. Then in 2015, after playing the finished game, that would be the time to give them my opinion.

Remember, they can fail in more than one way. I have more fear that their story is unoriginal or doesn't work or is too similar to PS:T's story. Graphics, RPG system and combat system are secondary. Not irrelevant, but something I'm willing to try out no matter what idea they come up with.

@dlux
Well, when no XP for killing monster is not a minor issue how could a whole other combat system be?
All I was trying to say is that you want to talk reason into people although you know that stuff like this is emotional. Statements like "Inxile will know what works best" are just plain stupid imo. It's like stating that concept doesn't matter after all, just the people developing. I think it's much more the other way round. Even good developers can develop bullshit (just look at Bioshock Infinite....). In the end it's all about the concept and I don't see any reason why we should trust anyone to make a better TB game than a RTwP game.... ;)

@LC:
Whaaaaaaat? Me arguing? Saying that their disappointment is not justifed? Who's posts are you reading dude. xD
I have already been called a TB hater today, and now I don't like RTwP either. I guess I don't know where I belong. O.o

^^

BTW: I was not fond about more than one thing during the Project Eternity kickstarter. And no xp for kills is not a minor issue (at least to me), it is stupid to kill tons of trash mobs and not receive xp for that. Might as well just remove loot for killing too.

@ Tane Norther ....easy...they change that assets and fudge the numbers alittle...and the ruleset...with this bonehead move....you really think you are going to get a ruleset similar to the tabletop game....haha...don't let the wolf pull that cover over your eyes again baaaaaahhhhhh.....lol

I wonder whether people would argue the same way if Inxile also let us vote on perspective (isometric, first person, third person or even simple text-based without graphics...). I mean, who cares? It's all about the narrative, isn't it?

Guys, if you don't care about video games and their elements and execution, read books. They have the better stories anyway. :P

The weird thing in this whole argumentation is that many of the people voting for TB are not really interested in combat after all. "It's all about the story, they claim." That's really odd because TB is at the very core a system which encourages combat gameplay. Most games that used a turn based approach are games that rely almost completely on the combat system (Jagged Alliance 1+2, Xcom, Civilization,...). Turn bases is best suited for games with a strong focus on strategy and actual combat gameplay. People play these games because of the turn based approach and not for other stuff like story while just accepting combat as a minor element of the game.
It baffles me that suddenly turn based combat should be suited for a game that strives for narrative depth and immersion into a world, it's characters and its stories. Why would you think that a strategical approach based on non-video board games could to be suited to enhance this narrative basis? I don' get it. I think the real reason at the core is that again system and rulesets (aka crisis concept) rule over immersion and feel. It's one of the biggest and most constant failures in history of role playing VIDEO games. It's a game done by math freaks and nerds to be a numbers game cloaked with stories and fancy graphics but not a video game. It doesn't use the strenghts of the medioum (fluidity and immersion) to enhance tabletop gameplay, it denies its possibilities. It's just a tabletop game on a computer screen. That's so disappointing, especially for a narrative-driven game....

oh yeah....rofl...inxile you are so greedy...copy and paste a combat system from a game that was already developed by you recently...guess that was smooth move by upper management and the vote was a Hollywood show...that's all I have to say...ill get over it.....you have ruined a classic...thx

This game was never meant to be either an exact clone of PST based on modern technology or it's sequel. The first reason is that the story of The Nameless One has already been told. The second reason is a problem with licensing setting and ruleset from Wizards of the Coast. So there was ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of getting a sequel to or a modernized clone of PST. I believe everyone who backed here understood that. So why can't this game have a combat system that is done differently, especially taking the problems of original Torment into account?
And why in the hells one would need ANOTHER Torment "clone" if there is an ORIGINAL Torment already? This kickstarter campaign was made because there was a chance to create a new Torment, with the same approach to narrative and philosophical depth yet with different story in a different world, without desperate clinging to the past with it's rights and wrongs.
Remember that Torment became a Torment only due to it's story, it's memorable charachters, it's narrative and so on... Why can't be an entirely NEW Torment with the same philosophical depth and the same but evolved approach to narrative?
I believe we all must just wait and see what happens. We need to see at least a prototype combat video to deliever preliminaty judgement instead of casting curses at InXile right now.
InXile's intention to create a *spiritual successor* to PST is their chance to *transcend* the original, to evolve it, to make it something even *greater* no matter what. Just think on how much they bet on it... It's their Opus Magnus. And if they'll not make it right - then they are forever doomed in the eyes of their fans. That's why they needed our faith, our support and our money. And that's why we provided all of it to them.

P.S. Voted for "indifferent" variant in this notorious poll because I believe in InXile and their vision though before that I imagined myself this game as RTwP.

@dlux
You shouldn't argue so much here, mate. Or may I remember you that you ragequit Eternity for a much minor issue? It wasn't even about the whole combat system but just about one element in the system. So don't pretend that it doesn't matter at all which elements are used in a game. That's just not true for many people. I know it and you know it... ;)

BTW I don't have anything against TB in general. I love games like XCOM EU and Jagged Alliance 2 and I'm looking forward to Divinity Original Sin. But these are combat driven games at the core. These games are about combat and not about story. Torment and Eternity are more "adventure/novel RPGs" for me and no strategy games. Turn based doesn't fit that much to a narrative-driven game and it definitely kills immersion, no matter what Inxile says in order to justify it. They can't. It's a simple fact.

I still hope that Torment will use a "light" turn based system without visible signs of its mechanics. A grid on the ground would be the ultimate death to every bit of immersion left....

Superbacker

The worst thing about this vote imo is that it has cut players into two sides.
If they had decided for themselves from the get go they would have less money for sure but no complaint.

I don't see any losers though since we'll all get a new Torment which is more than what we had in the last 10 ten years.I don't think RtwP was a huge part of what made Torment such a great game, but it was a part of it.

Going for TB just broke the sense of nostalgia i had with Numenera. So, i'll welcome this game as another game. What i didn't lack though what setting this vote rather than take a decision.

Saying at the end we felt TB was what would provide the best experience, which is like spitting on those who wanted RtwP.

And Also this doubt i have that they didn't say at first their intention to make more money.

Of course there are - people who wanted a sequel to Planescape Torment. Despite your claims to the contrary, the combat system (and the Infinity Engine) were a huge part of what made Torment the best RPG of all time.

That you've taken the easy way out because it's cheaper is extremely disappointing. You put effort over authenticity.

Superbacker

I find it hard to believe that anybody who really loved PS:T would have not backed this new one in the beginning even if it had been decided back then to be TB. I voted for RTwP but I'd STILL have given them my money. PST was NOT about RTwP. Sure you might have been a little disappointed but NOT BACK IT? That is throwing the baby out with the bath water if I've ever heard of it.

@Tane. epic lawl. As Arnold said, if you don't grant me my wish, to hell with you!
@David. Well I used to buy stuff based on assumptions, learnt it the hard way. Nowadays I read the expiry date before purchasing any food. Not saying I don't make same kind of mistakes any more, it's human, but can't blame others for my own fault. (except the part which they put rotten food on shelf).

@Sam
You probably only read posts that are "@SAM". Scroll back and check out the posts in T:ToN forums, it's full of fake PS:T fanboi I truly refer to.

T:ToN started off "spiritual successor of Planescape: Torment." It is stated very clearly and supported by Chris Avellone in numerous occasions through tweeters and youtube. I've been a forum poster of BIS since year 2000 and along with many true fanboys of PS:T understood that the moment we pledged this game we pledged for that 400+ pages in spirit created by BIS, not the combat Bioware had offered 15 year ago.

Even though I will enjoy RTwP more than turn base, Infinity Engine is irrelevant to PS:T. Sure you can enjoy the game however you like, and you can stick your head in there for the rest of eternity, I don't care. You can enjoy driving a car backward when it's designed to be drove forward, but complaining that it's not designed to go backward is simply trolling.

@Tane with a Kickstarter you are never going to get all the details. You have to take the jump at some point. Also not everyone is going to want to spend the time checking in on a project every day just to see if questions are answered or waiting until the final hours to back a project just so they can see all the details. Kickstarter largely works because people are willing and the project creators are largely honest and forthright. If either side of that system breaks down the whole system falls apart.

It is also easy to look back and see thing that weren't explicitly laid out and think you should have seen them at the time, but history has shown that's not how we think. We fill in things using assumptions and context. It is how our vision works, it is how we communicate. It's a key aspect of our consciousness. It doesn't make sense to try to make people feel bad about being human.

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" Haha. Good soundtrack and a great movie! (my fave movie sountrack must be the one of Terminator 1, though).

@ David Stewart: Well, I agree that people could assume there's a reasonable possibility for RTwP. But without information given, one shouldn't just pledge his money relying for an assumption or possibility of things. It's always a gamble. I wouldn't, or if I did, I'd learn about it and leave it to be the last time I did so, and be more careful on the next time.
Think about it as buying a used NES game. Just because the seller shows you a picture of the game cart which is in flawless condition, and tells, that he will have picture of the cardboard game box for you tomorrow, if you can just wait for it, would you buy the whole package right then, assuming that cardboard box will be in good condition, too, because the game cart itself looks flawless? Or would you wait another day to see a picture of cardboard box too? There's good possibility that the cardboard box will be in nice condition as the cart itself is flawless and the sellers other items look to be pretty fine condition, also. Would you assume, or would you wait for more information before bidding?

I knew you guys would address the fears most people had! I really trust your judgement anyway, since I don't have any strong feelings about the combat system anyway and combat isn't a focus of the game.

Just try to make TB a bit more fllexible, meaning we can switch from character to character when it's our turn and then we can end the turn when we're done with all.
But I guess you'll inform us about further details down the road ;)

I am not actually putting my opinion anywhere, I am saying that people enjoyed different parts of it that maybe didn't match the "FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY" of the game and that to them it became part of that game regardless of whether it was intended or not because the way the game played out made that stick in peoples mind more than the 400+ pages of text that half of them probably skimmed at best

Philosophy of games isn't what people on the whole remember or even think about majorly and so unless they decide to go far beyond simply enjoying the story it won't be relevant

Also no one said RTwP was fundamental to the game, that one was all you